Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 09/07/2023MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE APPEALS BOARD AMES, IOWA SEPTEMBER 7, 2023 Call to Order Roll Call (Read by Recording Secretary Natalie Rekemeyer) Present from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Rich Lepper, Rachel Norem, Patti Engelman, Eric Fralick, Colleen Schwartz, Kristin Dillavou, Absent; Preston Kolhaas City Staff members present were City Attorney, Vikki Feilmeyer, Building Official Sara Van Meeteren, Inspectors, Dan Thomas, and Recording Secretary, Natalie Rekemeyer Opening Statement was read by Board Chair Rich Lepper. Election of Officers: Eric Fralick nominated Rich Lepper as Chairperson, seconded by Colleen Schwartz Vote on Motion: (5-0); Rich abstained. Patti Engelman nominated Eric Fralick as Vice Chairperson, seconded by Rachel Norem. Vote on Motion: (5-0); Motion passed unanimously. Approval of Minutes Moved by Schwartz, seconded by Engelman, to approve the minutes of October 6, 2022. Vote on Motion: (6-0); Motion passed unanimously. Old Business None New Business Appeal Occupancy; 13.503(4) (e) at 3825 Ontario Street by Di Pei Building Official, Sara Van Meeteren gave the Staff Report. A rental inspection was done on 6/19/23. The basement bedroom did not meet requirements to be a bedroom and cannot be used for sleeping purposes. Occupancy recognizes three bedrooms upstairs setting the maximum number of adults at three. The occupancy is solely based on the number of bedrooms. This is not a home in the near campus area so if they did create a legal bedroom in the basement, they could increase the occupancy to four at this property. Currently the tenants have two adults and two children so they are not over occupied so the Board decision would not require anyone to be removed from the property. Ms. Engelman asked for clarification of the appellants statement, that two adults and two children violates the Code as a three bedroom. Ms. Van Meeteren said the checklist stated the following: 3 bedrooms-Max occupancy of 3 Lower level NOT approved sleeping area or bedroom that counts, as occupancy-remove bedroom from lower level The report didn’t indicate how many people that were there or that it was over occupied. Ms. Schwartz stated that this seems to be in compliance. Ms. VanMeeteren stated that the Board should address the next item first as that will determine the occupancy limits for the property. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that this is a three-bedroom house that can have three adults and any number of children. Mr. Lepper asked for Ms. Feilmeyer to clarify what the Board needs to do. Ms. Feilmeyer stated that if the appellant wanted to remove the appeal on the record, she could do that. Ms. Van Meeteren shared with Ms. Pei that if it is understood that it is a three-bedroom house and has a maximum of three adults for occupancy, then the appeal for this item can be dismissed. Ms. Pei said the report stated occupancy of three, appeal went forward. Ms. Dillavou moved to affirm the decision of the Building Official based on the Code the three- bedroom house is limited to three adults and unlimited children and has been interpreted correctly. Ms. Engelman seconded. Vote on motion: (6-0); Motion passed unanimously. Appeal Bedroom Ceiling Height; 13.503 (1) at 3825 Ontario Street by Di Pei Ms. Van Meeteren stated that the basement bedroom has a ceiling of 6’10” (2” short of the Code requirement), the Code requires 7’. The ceiling height under duct work is 6’5” (1” below the exception). The ceiling height at the stairs is 5’8” (8” shorter than what is allowed under beams in non-habitable rooms). The Code requires bedrooms in these areas to have two paths of egress, one being the egress window that was installed and the other is the door to go upstairs and out of the unit. The entire path of egress must be compliant. These are the requirements for a new bedroom not something that was existing. There was a new egress window put in which triggers compliance for all bedroom requirements. This bedroom doesn’t meet sleeping requirements, so it limits the occupancy to the three bedrooms above grade on this property. Questions for Staff: Mr. Fralick stated that according to the report the City would wave some of the ceiling requirement. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that there is a process to allow non-compliant ceiling height. Historically the lowest that was previously allowed is 6’6” for the ceiling height. The process is after the application process, a memo would be drafted and attached to the property. Mr. Fralick clarified that the height of the bedroom is not the main issue. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that the bedroom ceiling height could be administratively approved. Mr. Fralick stated that it is the height of the staircase that is the issue. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that the 5’8” is 8” under the Code requirement. Kristin Dillavou asked if there was a process initiated to request an exception. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that the appeal process was the choice of the owner. The stairway height would have to be corrected before the bedroom height could be approved. Appellant Comments: Di Pei, owner of 3825 Ontario. The ceiling height is 70 inches not 5’8”. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that it is 5.8’ or 5’10”. Ms. Pei read her prepared statement. Her main points were that the staircase only has one step that is at 70 inches, a minimal discrepancy. She stated that she doesn’t feel there is any scientific data to support the 6’4” requirement. She continued that the County Assessor determined the house as a four bedroom and are paying taxes based on that. Questions for the Appellant: Ms. Engelman asked when the Appellant purchased the property. Ms. Pei stated that it was five years ago. Ms. Engelman asked if it was a rental property prior to her purchase of the property. Ms. Pei stated she wasn’t sure. She also stated that it had been used as an office, prior to one of the daughter’s wanted to move downstairs. Ms. Engelman stated that if it was owner-occupied, you could use it as you wish but as a rental it does need to meet the Code. Ms Schwartz stated that the Assessor doesn’t come into play if it is a rental, so the assessment of the property is separate from the Rental Code. The responsibility of the Rental Code is the owner’s responsibility. The purpose of the Board is to determine the safety of the tenants and of the emergency workers that may need access, that one step is very important. Safety is very important. Ms. Dillavou questioned if the property was being marketed as a four bedroom. Ms. Pei stated that the current residents only need three bedrooms. Conversation continued about the future marketability of the property as a four- bedroom home. Ms. Engelman asked if in the building permit application process would a permit for egress window trigger the company to look at the overall compliance. Mr. Lepper stated if that was part of the initial process requested of the company but if you ask for a construction company to put in an egress window than there wouldn’t be any further evaluation. Mr. Lepper stated that he saw that there was dialogue forewarning of this issue through the email thread. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that this has become an issue so the permitting process has changed. When someone at a rental house applies for an egress window the rental inspectors are alerted. There were notes on the plan review that the addition of the egress window did not create a compliant bedroom. Previously, this owner at one of their other properties put in an egress window and were told of the list of things to be in compliance for an approved bedroom. They understood and agreed at the other property that the addition of the egress window did not make a compliant bedroom without the other conditions being met. The building permit notes are sent to the contractor and may not have gotten back to the owner. However, there were previous discussions with the appellant on another property with similar conditions and they acknowledged that the other conditions were required to make a basement bedroom compliant. Mr. Fralick clarified that this situation has occurred with this owner previously. Ms. Pei stated that it was a different house. Mr. Fralick stated that possibly at the time the house was built the intention was not to have the basement finished and is not currently compliant. Mr. Fralick asked if this is a safe situation. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that the Code says no, as the ceiling height is not compliant. She added that the requirements of the Assessor’s office for a room to be considered a bedroom is different than the Rental Code. The Assessor only requires a window (of any size, egress not required) and a closet. The Rental Code doesn’t require a closet. The Code requires certain things for safety purposes that the Assessor’s office doesn’t require to be called a bedroom. Ms Engelman suggested in an effort to provide a solution a second alternative for egress could be a door directly to the outside from the living room instead of the stairway, if possible. Mr. Lepper stated that if the stairway height could be resolved the ceiling height in the bedroom could be approved administratively as it’s been done in the past. Ms. Van Meeteren shared that Inspector Dan Thomas stated that there is more of a drop ceiling and there could be the potential for that area to be changed. Mr. Lepper stated that with his construction experience it appears that there is a potential for this to be resolved. Ms. Dillavou asked for clarification on exceptions that were made to ceiling height versus under the rafter exceptions. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that she doesn’t recall any exceptions being made for height under the rafters. The Code states the determination can be made for ceiling height exceptions if it is functional and maintained. The standard is 6’6” and anything under that is not a functional ceiling height. If there were a fire smoke rises making it difficult to escape and access for emergency personnel to the spaces. Mr. Fralick asked for clarification what the measurement difference is for the ceiling. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that the measurement was 5’10” and would be 6” under the allowable Code requirement. Mr. Lepper stated that under new construction rules outside the Rental Code, 6’8” is the stairwell clearance figures. The Rental Division is being very lenient with 6’4” for the stairway height. Mr. Lepper asked for a Point of Order, should the Board address item B first. Mr. Lepper clarified that administrative approval could be done if the stair height was resolved. Ms. Van Meeteren agreed, the stair height is the impediment to bringing the basement bedroom into compliance. Vikki Feilmeyer stated that the Administrative Approval is not for the Board only for Building Official. Mr. Lepper stated the Board is to approve or deny and not to design. Motion: Ms Schwartz moved the Property Maintenance Appeals Board deny the appeal and the Code has been correctly interpreted and that the provisions do fully apply. The basement bedroom would not be considered compliant and would not be allowed to be used as a sleeping area for rental purposes. Seconded by Ms. Norem. Vote on motion: (6-0) ; Motion passed to deny the appeal. Mr. Lepper explained that this decision can be appealed through the District Court within 30 days after the filing of the Decision and Order. Board or Staff Comments Adjournment Norem moved and Dillavou seconded to adjourn the meeting. Vote on motion: (6-0); Motion passed unanimously. Time of adjournment: 4:55 PM Signature Page __________________________________ _______________________________ Date: ___________, Date: ___________, Rich Lepper, Board Chair Natalie Rekemeyer, Recording Secretary Property Maintenance Appeals Board